Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

To say "the girls cried at the airport" grotesquely understates the trauma they experienced. By trivializing what happened to them, by comparing it to children who cry when they don't get ice cream, you reveal more about yourself than you may realize. Indeed, your comments throughout this thread are telling. I can see that you are wound up, all but choking with rage, and it's not pretty.

That is why I asked the question I did earlier and expected the answer I got.
(that is not against joe6P, that is logic).

__________________There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

So much of the discussion here, as well as the court's decision, is framed around a perception of the mother.

The court's decision is based on the facts at hand, which is more than just the perception of the mother.

Quote:

She's a kidnapper, she's a villain, etc., so anything done to wrest her children away is by definition in their best interest.

So what is she in your mind?

Quote:

I don't accept that glib syllogism. I'm quite willing to consider that the mother and her family may have handled this situation badly. But the way to counter that is not to pour gasoline on the fire, unleashing the police with instructions to use whatever force is necessary.

So at what point is the law to be enforced?

Quote:

We might see that as the administration of the law. For the kids, it was a physical assault and a vivid confirmation of their worst fears. If the mother indoctrinated the kids, the police ended up validating the doctrine: fear your father, fear his power to control your lives, fear the agents who do his bidding.

And in the case of the elder children, one of their own making. But then the media seemed to know exactly when they were going to be taken away, so perhaps they were putting on a show for the cameras?

Quote:

It cannot have been the only option available. If the court felt that the mother and her family had used the powers of persuasion to manipulate the kids, perhaps they should have made a civilized effort at counter-persuasion. Perhaps this father could have flown to Australia to re-unite with his children in a mediated environment where everyone felt safe.

And then what? Hope they return to Italy so the Italian courts can decide custody? He goes home alone and has the courts over there and find in his favour ultimately using the same laws to force the kids to go back to Italy?

I'm wondering if anyone with extensive experience with children has taken up a defense of the mother's actions or has condemned the decision of the Australian courts?

Any parents? Any developmental psychologists? Any school teachers or children's health professionals?

Advocating against the forced reunification with the father based on the histrionics of teen aged girls is a pretty weak position. I wonder if there's anything aside from the girls' public anguish to support your position?

I don't see where all this BS about her being an unfit mother comes from when we don''t even know either the family or personal circumstances of these people.

We know the mother kidnapped the children and took them to a foreign country in an effort to avoid a proper legal custody hearing and deny the father the right to see his children, and then dragged out the inevitable for over 2 years and made a media circus of the whole affair. We know Australian courts also found the mothers behavior was atrocious. We know the mother hasn't made any sort of allegations of impropriety against the father.

I don't see where all this BS about her being an unfit mother comes from when we don''t even know either the family or personal circumstances of these people.

Scenario:
Two separate families have similar circumstances; the parents are separated and the father has custody of all the daughters. Recently, the oldest daughters in each family have finally confided to their mothers that her fathers been sexually abusing them for many years, and are now turning their interests towards the next oldest daughters.

In Family "A" both the mother and the oldest daughter are afraid that the pattern will continue with the younger daughter, so they formulate a and execute a plan to get all the daughters away from the father and to safety in another country.

In Family "B". the mother tells the daughter she is a liar, and she carries on in denial of what she can see has been happening right in front of her for many years.

Who's the unfit mother now, A or B?

Now I'm not saying that this is what is happening with THIS family, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios that fits the picture, especially with the two oldest daughters being the most upset about having to go back to their father.

Unfit because of kidnapping.

That's not hard to grasp, is it?

__________________For what doth it profit a man, to fix one bug, but crash the system?

Now I'm not saying that this is what is happening with THIS family, but it is one of a number of possible scenarios that fits the picture, especially with the two oldest daughters being the most upset about having to go back to their father.

If you are just going to make **** up from whole cloth could you at least make it more entertaining. I'm sure if you PM TM he can set you up with a plot, props, or at least a setting, that adds something to the conversation. This mundane "daddy may be molester" crap is just not even worth reading without a bit more effort.

Funny how the posters accusing others of deciding based on emotional reaction to "crying teenagers" are themselves most frequently indulging in emotional appeal, charged language, and swearing. I wonder what skepticism says about that?

Funny how the posters accusing others of deciding based on emotional reaction to "crying teenagers" are themselves most frequently indulging in emotional appeal, charged language, and swearing. I wonder what skepticism says about that?

Swearing is *********** sign of satan. I learned that on the goddamn internet.

I don't think many people think the mother was in the right (even if there was abuse it would be best to go through the courts first imo) but it seems like a case of trying to say two wrongs make a right. She abducted the kids (she probably told them it was a holiday and once they had been there for a while just dropped it on them that they are never going back) and the law tries to fix this by dragging them kicking and screaming to a plane. I think we can all see which one was more traumatising.

I agree they couldn't have stayed with her but surely there was a less barbaric way to handle this.

It feels like the kids were just property she took and the court ordered the police to return it to him. It seems dehumanizing.

I agree they couldn't have stayed with her but surely there was a less barbaric way to handle this.

The mother had a lot of influence over how traumatic this was. She could have easily made it less traumatic, but that would not have made a good movie. (See the grandmother's comments about who will play the dark haired daughter in the movie version.)

With so much use of the trigger word "kidnapping" in this thread, I assume the mother has been charged, or extradition sought?

No?

Stop using such an emotionally laden word then. This was a custody dispute. It happens hundreds of times a day. Labelling someone a "kidnapper" does nothing useful. You may as well call her a terrorist holding children hostage.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

The mother had a lot of influence over how traumatic this was. She could have easily made it less traumatic, but that would not have made a good movie. (See the grandmother's comments about who will play the dark haired daughter in the movie version.)

I agree, the "barbaric" nature of the episode was entirely orchestrated by the mother.

With so much use of the trigger word "kidnapping" in this thread, I assume the mother has been charged, or extradition sought?

No?

Stop using such an emotionally laden word then. This was a custody dispute. It happens hundreds of times a day. Labelling someone a "kidnapper" does nothing useful. You may as well call her a terrorist holding children hostage.

So calling it by it's proper name is somehow loading the conversation here? What does one call spiriting away one's children to deny them access to their other parent for no other reason than "just because"?

With so much use of the trigger word "kidnapping" in this thread, I assume the mother has been charged, or extradition sought?

No?

Stop using such an emotionally laden word then. This was a custody dispute. It happens hundreds of times a day. Labelling someone a "kidnapper" does nothing useful. You may as well call her a terrorist holding children hostage.

The child abusing coke-head father that wants to sell the kids into sex slavery agreed not to press charges. Something about the children losing some value on the open market if their mother was convicted, I'm sure.

We know the mother kidnapped the children and took them to a foreign country in an effort to avoid a proper legal custody hearing and deny the father the right to see his children, and then dragged out the inevitable for over 2 years and made a media circus of the whole affair. We know Australian courts also found the mothers behavior was atrocious. We know the mother hasn't made any sort of allegations of impropriety against the father.

We know this how? An absence of media reporting?

Well guess what sonny, we didn't know about Jimmy Savile's dirty little secret, until it became public... and it had been going on for over 40 years!

Just because you don't know something, or it hasn't been reported in the media doesn't mean it hasn't happened?

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Unfit because of kidnapping.

That's not hard to grasp, is it?

No, its not not hard to grasp, but without knowing the family circumstances, we should not even be attempting to make judgements about the fitness of the mother. No-one on this forum knows the detailed circumstances of this family, and if they claim they do, then they are lying!

Making your children safe from harm might include having to remove them from the person harming them, and that might include kidnapping them. You do what you have to do!

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

If you are just going to make **** up from whole cloth could you at least make it more entertaining. I'm sure if you PM TM he can set you up with a plot, props, or at least a setting, that adds something to the conversation. This mundane "daddy may be molester" crap is just not even worth reading without a bit more effort.

Except that, having been a school teacher, I have encountered this "mundane "daddy may be molester" crap" a number of times before. On at least a couple of occasions, it turned out to be true. If there is one thing I have learned from my experiences is that you cannot judge what happens in a family until you actually KNOW the circumstances in detail.

__________________► OCCAMS Razor - 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists organised by Osama Bin Laden; the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.► "Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition." - JayUtah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

The mother had a lot of influence over how traumatic this was. She could have easily made it less traumatic, but that would not have made a good movie. (See the grandmother's comments about who will play the dark haired daughter in the movie version.)

Well the courts and police also played their part by lugging the kids around as if they were furniture she lost in the divorce. I agree that she should have been trying to calm them down but that doesn't make the way it was handled any better.

From the way she was described by the judge they would have known beforehand that she wasn't going to be any help calming the situation down. So storming in and grabbing the kids was just stupid, as well as bordering on assault.

With so much use of the trigger word "kidnapping" in this thread, I assume the mother has been charged, or extradition sought?

No?

Stop using such an emotionally laden word then. This was a custody dispute. It happens hundreds of times a day. Labelling someone a "kidnapper" does nothing useful. You may as well call her a terrorist holding children hostage.

So calling something what it is is immoral now when charges don't get pressed? She doesn't seem to even be denying the kidnapping claim.

With so much use of the trigger word "kidnapping" in this thread, I assume the mother has been charged, or extradition sought?

No?

Stop using such an emotionally laden word then. This was a custody dispute. It happens hundreds of times a day. Labelling someone a "kidnapper" does nothing useful. You may as well call her a terrorist holding children hostage.

The father agreed not to press charges to get the kids returned to Italy.

Just because he agreed not to press charges doesn't mean she didn't kidnap the kids. It just means getting his kids back was more important than pressing charges against the kidnapper mother.

Well the courts and police also played their part by lugging the kids around as if they were furniture she lost in the divorce.

Nobody lost anything in the divorce, she kidnapped the kids prior to the custody hearing.

It appears to me several of the kidnapping supporters here are under the impression the Italian court unjustly gave an abusive father sole custody of the kids, so she spirited them away to Oz for their own protection.

The reality is this is a vengeful, spiteful evil woman who was upset at her ex-husband so she decided she'd take the kids away from him to punish him for whatever wrongs she thinks were done to her. She's the one using the kids as weapons to get back at her former husband.

__________________► OCCAMS Razor - 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists organised by Osama Bin Laden; the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone.► "Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition." - JayUtah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Nobody lost anything in the divorce, she kidnapped the kids prior to the custody hearing.

It appears to me several of the kidnapping supporters here are under the impression the Italian court unjustly gave an abusive father sole custody of the kids, so she spirited them away to Oz for their own protection.

The reality is this is a vengeful, spiteful evil woman who was upset at her ex-husband so she decided she'd take the kids away from him to punish him for whatever wrongs she thinks were done to her. She's the one using the kids as weapons to get back at her former husband.

I never said that. Try reading it again. I said the children are being treated like property. As if they were a stereo system that the court deemed isn't hers and so can just be picked up and deposited at his house. It feels very dehumanising and that is the part of this case that makes me the most uncomfortable. I've also said she was in the wrong so I have no idea what you're babbling about.

She may have used them as weapons but they are the ones being punished for it. The fact that she did a bad/criminal thing isn't the point. The point is that the police handled this atrociously and treated the kids like criminals.

If you have a problem with "kidnap supporters" and people speculating the father may have been abusive then take it up with them and don't try to twist my posts.

I never said that. Try reading it again. I said the children are being treated like property. As if they were a stereo system that the court deemed isn't hers and so can just be picked up and deposited at his house. It feels very dehumanising and that is the part of this case that makes me the most uncomfortable. I've also said she was in the wrong so I have no idea what you're babbling about.

She may have used them as weapons but they are the ones being punished for it. The fact that she did a bad/criminal thing isn't the point. The point is that the police handled this atrociously and treated the kids like criminals.

If you have a problem with "kidnap supporters" and people speculating the father may have been abusive then take it up with them and don't try to twist my posts.

OK, and who is responsible for it coming to this point, if not the mother?

We know the mother kidnapped the children and took them to a foreign country in an effort to avoid a proper legal custody hearing and deny the father the right to see his children, and then dragged out the inevitable for over 2 years and made a media circus of the whole affair. We know Australian courts also found the mothers behavior was atrocious. We know the mother hasn't made any sort of allegations of impropriety against the father.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

We know this how? An absence of media reporting?

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, the Australian court opinion.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And Australian Courts, of course are never wrong

I'm fairly certain they are accurate as to what was alleged in court by the parties, even when they come to the wrong decision.

Can you show where she made any allegation against the father other than the grandmother claiming that all Italians are liars in front of her half Italian grand kids?

It's too bad his children want nothing more than to get away from him.

If she can do it, then so can anyone. She effectively kidnapped his daughters. When you agree to have children in a country, when they are citizens of that country, you can't take them to another country secretly.

If they want to live with her, and only have weekend access rights, for instance, then that is up to the law to decide in that country. Otherwise any parent in a divorce just has to make sure that they strike first, grab the kids, and run. That way just leads to utter chaos.

__________________Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

I'm wondering if anyone with extensive experience with children has taken up a defense of the mother's actions or has condemned the decision of the Australian courts?

Any parents? Any developmental psychologists? Any school teachers or children's health professionals?

Advocating against the forced reunification with the father based on the histrionics of teen aged girls is a pretty weak position. I wonder if there's anything aside from the girls' public anguish to support your position?

I don't accept that glib syllogism. I'm quite willing to consider that the mother and her family may have handled this situation badly. But the way to counter that is not to pour gasoline on the fire, unleashing the police with instructions to use whatever force is necessary. We might see that as the administration of the law. For the kids, it was a physical assault and a vivid confirmation of their worst fears. If the mother indoctrinated the kids, the police ended up validating the doctrine: fear your father, fear his power to control your lives, fear the agents who do his bidding.

It cannot have been the only option available. If the court felt that the mother and her family had used the powers of persuasion to manipulate the kids, perhaps they should have made a civilized effort at counter-persuasion. Perhaps this father could have flown to Australia to re-unite with his children in a mediated environment where everyone felt safe.

Almost anything would have been better than what they ended up doing.

Unfortunately I think by that point there weren't many options left. When the original order was made for the kids to be returned to Italy, the mother was supposed to take them to Brisbane Airport on a specific day. Instead, the grandmother went on the run with them (that's when she made the "Italians are all liars" comment). The father did in fact fly to Australia and reunite with the kids, by all accounts happily, but given that they were still being cared for by the mother's family - the judge granted the mother interim custody with "great reluctance" after they went on the run - there would only be so much he and the courts could do within a very limited time-frame to undo the effects of any manipulation.

There's no doubt the mother wanted a scene just like the one which occurred - after all, this thread and numerous other discussions and media articles wouldn't even exist if it hadn't. It supported her case more to have the children distressed. If the mother created a situation where the only way she was going to let the girls go was to have them taken by force because it made for better TV - if attempts to do things in a more civilized way had already failed - it's very difficult to know what else the authorities could have done.

__________________"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".

There is no evidence that these kids were happy or miserable, just that they were attached to their mother and knew that they would be unlikely to see her again if they left. I'm sure she convinced them of that.

Indeed - it was "made abundantly clear by her to the children over a period of several months at least, that she will not return with them to Italy". This was apparently their primary reason for not wanting to go back.

__________________"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".

I don't understand why people blame the mother for using the kids as pawns but assume the father isn't doing the same thing. She just grabbed them first. Does that automatically mean he's only capable of unselfish love, and she's incapable of it? Maybe they're both jerks, but she was just faster out the starting gate.

That would be because there is evidence that the mother used the children as pawns, and no evidence that the father did.

OK, and who is responsible for it coming to this point, if not the mother?

Where in that post did I say this whole situation wasn't the mother's fault? Just because she started this chain of events doesn't mean the police handled it well. Or that the way the kids removal degenerated was entirely her fault. I've even already agreed that the court was right to remove the kids from her custody. She sounds unstable and untrustworthy and I doubt she'll get any unsupervised access after pulling this stunt.

I don't know if anyone else has seen the 60 Minutes program on the case? It has interviews with the father and with the mother's family. I just watched it and it's...revealing, let's say.

__________________"All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Ahab, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in Moby Dick".

It looks like you were on the wrong end of a custody dispute, and if so, you have my sympathies. But I can disagree with you without warranting a label, as much as labels (like kidnapper and unfit mother) are popular in this thread.

__________________A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.